Biology, Politics, and the Left

[Revoltingest]

It's actually not amd even some Libertarian (yes, your kind with the big L) authors have discussed how land was widely and mostly stolen and unjustly acquired. The issue lies in solving the issue so all land is justly acquired.

Duh. Of course land has been stolen & re-stolen
throughout history. Everyone knows that.
I've been addressing determination of ownership
at a point in time, & in this case, the present.

He seems to take the view that ownership cannot
be defended. I'll wager that if you owned a home,
& squatters moved in to take it from you, you'd
be a convert to belief in ownership.

 

[Revoltingest]

Geez - you guys are not very good at reading rhetoric are you?

The point I was making is that if - IF - as in introducing a conditional clause - someone, like, for example, some other posters in this discussion - "other posters" meaning "not me" - are maintaining that there exists some kind of natural, human right to land ownership and/or some kind of natural, human right not to have that land "stolen"...you have an impossible task to determine who really stole which land from whom and when.

I don't know how the descendants of (say) a Scottish immigrant can possibly maintain that they have a natural right to own property in America and not have it stolen...they do not have a natural human right, they have a conventional legal right that is protected (and challengeable) by "due process"...

...that is neither "simplistic" nor "absolutist" - its just a plain fact - and that has been my point all along.

Meh....too verbose.

 

[Balthazzar]

America and the revolutionary war might be under scrutiny due to the land ownership and theft disputes. On one hand, we have it's ours as Americans, on another we have it was stolen from the natives, and yet on another's hand we have Americans took it from the Britts. At the moment, our nations investors are very likely interested in land ownership, which has me on edge due to our national debt.

 

[siti]

He seems to take the view that ownership cannot
be defended.

Where did I ever say that?

Meh....too verbose.

Ah! Now I get it - its not just reading rhetoric you are having trouble with but reading words in general!

I think it would be better if you either swallow the bitter pill and actually read what I wrote before responding, or maybe just don't respond at all...but it's really not appropriate to respond critically to what you imagine I might have said if only you had bothered to read it!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He seems to take the view that ownership cannot
be defended. I'll wager that if you owned a home,
& squatters moved in to take it from you, you'd
be a convert to belief in ownership.

I see it more the point being most humans, today and throughout history, will never own land. Yes, someone who lives in an apartment or rented house may say "my house" but that legally isn't the case.
The point was also made that property hasn't really gotten much attention as far as being a right goes.

 

[siti]

I see it more the point being most humans, today and throughout history, will never own land.

That's it...because what we're really doing is fighting over territory...and that is an evolutionary trait that we have inherited..."ownership" is really just a particularly sophisticated way of defending a territory - and certainly not an absolute moral "right". Millions of my English compatriots have fought and died to defend a territory that was (and really still is) legally owned by a foreign monarch. Why? Not because of some imagined absolute moral injunction safeguarding legally inherited property rights, but because that's what our genetically inherited territorial instinct tells us to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah! Now I get it - its not just reading rhetoric....

It's just not interesting.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see it more the point being most humans, today and throughout history, will never own land. Yes, someone who lives in an apartment or rented house may say "my house" but that legally isn't the case.

It seems you're unaware of real estate law.
Ownership is a "bundle of rights" that can
vary greatly, from fee simple to leasehold.
A "leasehold" can indeed legally be your home.
I was a real estate broker before you were even born, toots.

The point was also made that property hasn't really gotten much attention as far as being a right goes.

It has gotten much attention here,
in both the Constitution & law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It has gotten much attention here,
in both the Constitution & law.

And yet it isn't defined as a right.

It seems you're unaware of real estate law.
Ownership is a "bundle of rights" that can
vary greatly, from fee simple to leasehold.
A "leasehold" can indeed legally be your home.
I was a real estate broker before you were even born, toots.

You may have rights as a owner, but that doesn't mean owning is a right.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet it isn't defined as a right.

I suppose that if you personally don't see a
right in the Constitution or law, then it's not
a right, eg, the right to privacy, Miranda right,
abortion right, etc?

You may have rights as a owner, but that doesn't mean owning is a right.

It is only a right because of its wide recognition.
You should take a course in real estate law.
It would be an eye opener.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suppose that if you personally don't see a
right in the Constitution or law, then it's not
a right, eg, the right to privacy, Miranda right,
abortion right, etc?

Strictly speaking if it's not legally considered a right then it's not a right. It hasn't been ruled we have a right to own property. It has been determined it is proper to have our Constitutionally defined rights declared to us upon arrest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Strictly speaking if it's not legally considered a right then it's not a right.

Just in case....
A right can attain legality by legislation or court ruling.

It hasn't been ruled we have a right to own property. It has been determined it is proper to have our Constitutionally defined rights declared to us upon arrest.

FYI....

https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/property-rights-constitution

I've dealt extensively with property rights
& the many laws affecting them.

 

[siti]

It's just not interesting.

OK, but why would you feel the need to comment on something you had not read and had no interest in?

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, but why would you feel the need to comment on something you had not read and had no interest in?

What became uninteresting is
this game you're playing.

 

[siti]

What became uninteresting is
this game you're playing.

Game? I objected to another poster ranking the "right" TO own property alongside the "unalienable" human rights TO "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You twisted it around and started blathering on about the legal rights OF property owners.

Its not a game, you failed to read intelligently what I wrote and I am pointing that out.

And btw, the Cato Institute's desired reform is hardly an objective expression of "rights" or "law" anywhere, let alone universal human rights - and God knows why you felt inclined to post a link to that in a thread that is expressly about how "the Left" might benefit from a more Darwinian approach...except maybe to point out that "the Right" (as exemplified in that Cato Institute document) is even more mired in pre-Darwinian theories than "the Left".

I don't really care whether you appreciate my posts or not and your adolescent side swipes are not going to deter me one jot...

The fact remains that if you want to uphold an unalienable human right to own or defend your property - based on the Lockean principles behind the US Constitution and its entailments, then you have no moral choice but to return the "property" that was stolen to its rightful owners. Of course nobody is going to do that...but you can't have it both ways...it is either a moral human right to own land or it is not. In the end we all get the same in terms of land - a 6 foot hole in it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Game?

I don't remember your posts well enuf to respond.
Nor am I interested enuf to re-read them.
I'll save us both some time.
BTW, I did spot "inalienable" further down in your post.
That's a word I don't use. Perhaps you can find someone
else who wants to argue over it.

 

[siti]

I don't remember your posts well enuf to respond.
Nor am I interested enuf to re-read them.
I'll save us both some time.

I remember yours well enuf!
Funny how inanity is easier to remember than reasoned argumentation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just in case....
A right can attain legality by legislation or court ruling.

Yup. Amd by the same process they can be removed. Which means they're really just glorified privileges.

FYI....
https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policy-makers-8th-edition-2017/property-rights-constitution I've dealt extensively with property rights
& the many laws affecting them.

Certain things entitle you to certain rights and privileges in relation to that thing. Such as library usage and medical rights. But those rights don't apply to all, as libraries are essentially membership clubs and the doctor's office is one of the few remaining places we can still expect privacy.
But ultimately people are not entitled to property as a right in Anerica.

 

[siti]

BTW, I did spot "inalienable" further down in your post.
That's a word I don't use. Perhaps you can find someone
else who wants to argue over it.

I did...it was that person I was responding to in the first place. He has not responded further. Maybe he had the good sense not to continue with an argument he now knew was wrong. Fancy that!

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember yours well enuf!
Funny how inanity is easier to remember than reasoned argumentation.